Freesound Forums
"SoundEffectsFactory" youtube channel
Started February 1st, 2013 · 426 replies · Latest reply by Timbre 9 years, 2 months ago
The first part of 2 and 3 are shady, yes, but if SEF really has intention of not creating any harm and even contributing to the community, I'm sure he'll have no trouble stepping out of the shades.
He is contributing to freesound and uploaded some more sounds in the last week or so. Please leave the judging of community spirit to the community, bulbastre, the community is not just you. Oh and no need to reply absolutely every post I make in here.
thx 
- bram
Bram wrote:SEF is not unique : there will be an ongoing need by Freesound contributors for information on “how to complain about copyright-infringement to …” for the foreseeable future.
… Timbre could you please stop spamming the forum with various threads about various files @ freesound for now and with information on takedown notices? Once we have everything cleared out with SEF I will create one forum in which you/anyone can post takedown-wishes for SEF.
If the two “how to complain about copyright infringement to …” threads I’ve created ..
http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/34244 [ YouTube ]
http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/34819 [ MediaFire ]
are deficient in some way, by all means replace them with something better, but given how often Freesound is targeted by copyright-thieves IMO the Freesound “legal-help-and-attribution” forum should include such guides on how Freesound creators can seek, (and hopefully obtain), fair-treatment.
Bram wrote:
… Timbre, posting links to freesound usernames instead of particular files is a very gray area)
Not grey: it’s in bold black …
Creative Commons Attribution License, Restrictions …http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
4a. ... You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute ...
4b(i) ...the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied
4b(ii) ... the title of the Work if supplied
4 b(iii) ... the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work
URI associated with “the work” , not just that associated with the author.
Bram wrote:
I'm cool with him copying freesound files to YouTube to make money. As long as the files are attributed and not NC licenses anyone can copy what SEF is doing and we're cool with that. We're not so cool with the mediafire hosting as it has no attribution.
One cannot ignore conditions in a contract because one subjectively considers them not to be “cool”.
You can’t waive the rights of creators who happen to have contributed to Freesound , The [sound] creator can choose to waive some/all of their rights , but you can’t waive any of their rights on their behalf. It’s a creative-commons license , not a Freesound license. I appreciate you can't stop SEF's wrongdoing, but you shouldn't attempt to compromise with him : he either complies with the conditions creative-commons attribution-license or he doesn't,
if he doesn't the creators should complain to the website hosting the SEF copies of their work which infringe their copyright.
I’ve read the creative-commons attribution license and I appreciate it permits reproduction, including for commercial use, but only if the conditions in the contact are met , [ see “Restrictions” in attribution licence quoted above in this post ].
Bram wrote:
The practice of putting the attribution in under the "read more" section is shady, but it is not illegal.
IMO we should respond by holding the "shady" characters who engage in such underhand sharp-practice accountable to ALL the conditions of the attribution license, ( which will do serious-damage to their “shady” business if we succeed ). That’s what the small print is for : to close loopholes that people have unfairly exploited previously.
Bram, (thanks for dealing with my PM first of all)
I read you saying that as long as he isn't using the Non Commercial Attribution then he can use what he likes.
I am positive I'm not the only one but I selected the "Attribution and Non Commercial" option for it. As I am happy for people to use my work for their own projects, and will give permission if it's going to be used commercially, AFTER THEY HAVE SPOKEN TO ME PERSONALLY.
This is what is annoying me about SEF channel. No regard for the creators of the content and promoting his own needs ahead of the creators and using ad revenue to gain from the work of the Freesound community.
Timbre wrote:bulbastre wrote:
... if FreeSound doesn't enforce law or actively protect the copyright of its users, do you recommend a complementary service?I've been recomended SafeCreative.
"SafeCreative" may be able to automatically detect copyright-infringement , but "SafeCreative" are not going to "actively protect the copyright of its users" , i.e. take legal action on their behalf.
It's unreasonable to expect any media-file hosting service to "actively protect the copyright of its users" , least of all non-profit ones like Freesound , ( the lucrative YouTube don't even do that, other than "in-house" copyright-infringement where one YouTube Channel copies another ).
Yes, I understand what you mean.
I wasn't referring to SafeCreative as someone who would put advocates at user's service, rather a safe to prove authorship.
I've been told, for example, if you develop a project, you can upload the session and the individual files there, so it'll be commons sense you're the real author given a court case. Pretty much like senging yourself a certified letter: Post Service won't hire advocates for you, but is a useful tool in court.
I though Freesound could be that as well, but according to some people, the fact there's a recording of someone breathing with my name in here doesn't really prove I was the author. What's is Bram's and your opinion on this assertion?
Unlike legitimate media companies, ( e.g. record labels, games manufacturers ), prolific copyright thieves are largely indifferent to the prospect of bad-publicity, ( such publicity could even be counter-productive : the offender may benefit from the notoriety ).
Good insight.
Bram wrote:1. Timbre could you please stop spamming the forum with various threads about various files @ freesound for now and with information on takedown notices? Once we have everything cleared out with SEF I will create one forum in which you/anyone can post takedown-wishes for SEF.
Let's thing bigger than this: SEF will not be the only user in the world to do a similar thing. I think Timbre is adding lots of value to freesound. Did you expect to build a portal based on licensing and not expect questions, tutorials and queryings regarding user rights? I'm sure not, and I'm sure we can benefit for a subforum for all this themes, not just a dedicated thread to SEF.
Also, if he's redistributing those sounds legally, there's not point in a thread of takedown wishes. I don't think there's anything in the Licenses that can prevent anyone to redistribute the sounds if properly credited, so a takedown wish would be someone allowing you to copy homework to ask you to destroy afterwards. It doesn't make any moral nor legal sense.
2. As long as SEF is not doing anything illegal (Timbre, posting links to freesound usernames instead of particular files is a very gray area) I'm cool with him copying freesound files to YouTube to make money. As long as the files are attributed and not NC licenses anyone can copy what SEF is doing and we're cool with that. We're not so cool with the mediafire hosting as it has no attribution.
It would be a very gray area if SEF didn't know what he was doing. I understand copyright is a complicated issue, Creative Commons is a new thing, the Internet is a new place, and there'll be thousands of users out there using sounds from this page inadequately, even if not on purpose.
To err is human, to correct is divine. SEF could be wrong at first, like everyone else could, but he's been taught how to correct the errors. Did he correct them? I don't know. You can see my conversation with him - it died halfway through. Probably partly because I took the video down, I don't know. And that I would like to know. Is he correcting all the grey areas and stepping on the light? Were you succesful in your conversations with him about the Mediafire issue?
I have to put my hands up and admit I was wrong about what license I selected for the track I mentioned.
I picked attribution only, and since it was the first one I didn't really know what I was doing at the time. Every other track has the Attribution, NC license.
Still annoyed at the whole concept of skimming sounds and pitifully crediting the original creators.
I think it is more of a moral issue than a legal issue, as I have came to discover. He is clever with how he has gone about it, but has left a bitter taste in the mouths of those aware of his agenda here in the Freesound community.
I would have more admiration if his channel was purely all his own work and not borrowed.
I applaud the use of my work but only if he was to properly credit and use the original titles of the sounds he has borrowed.
Four days ago SEF uploads "8 Bit Circus Music" by "bone666138"
http://www.freesound.org/people/bone666138/sounds/198896/ [which has an attribution license ]
To YouTube as "8-Bit Circus Theme Music" ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsSfmcZF9CI
[ The usual unattributed copy on Mediafire ... http://www.mediafire.com/download/vpb5gj3zl35bbc7/8+bit+circus+music+SoundEffectsFactory.wav , and no link to "the work" on freesound #198896 ]
However I just noticed that the YouTube tags ["keywords"] for "8-Bit Circus Theme Music" include the words "public domain" ....
http://imageshack.com/a/img812/4918/lrir.gif
A sound with a creative-commons attribution-license is not in the "public domain" ...
wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
... Works in the public domain are those whose intellectual property rights have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable.
How many of SEF's 600+ videos are wrongly tagged as "public domain" ?
youtube.com wrotehttp://www.youtube.com/yt/playbook/metadata.html
Reminder: It is a violation of YouTube’s Terms of Service to use misleading metadata and blocks of keywords in your description field.
In this case the "public domain" tag is "misleading metadata" , and SEF is also guilty of putting "blocks of keywords" in the YouTube description field, which he calls "extra tags".
The YouTube "keyword" tags even include a reference to his previous incarnation on YouTube "SoundEffectsCapital" , which was closed down for, you guessed it , copyright-infringement.
[ BTW the URL for this post is ...
www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/73727
anyone complaining to YouTube about SEF may want to include this "additional information" in their communication ].
Back in 2012 SoundEffectsFactory did link to the specific Freesound used in his YouTube re-hosting ...
http://imageshack.com/a/img27/5323/w4o.gif
That was before it dawned on him that linking to "the work", as required by the attribution license,[4b(iii)], was bad for business : less people would download his copy of the sound via his monetized Mediafire link, (hidden in the bitly link) , as they had a link to the specific sound on Freesound.
2014 SoundEffectsFactory only links to the author's profile page on Freesound , (if they're lucky) , that looks like backsliding to me.
SEF recently got in touch with me regarding one of my tracks and asked if he could use it "commercially".
I said that was fine, as long as I was credited with a link to my profile/sound on Freesound.org with any links pointing his own creations afterwards. And suggested that he should donate 10% minimum to the Freesound campaign from any revenue off of it.
Needless to say, I didn't hear anything back.
afleetingspeck wrote:
I think Timbre is on to something here. Kudos for your research.
I made my début on YouTube about a week ago, only by doing that did I learn about YouTube tags aka, "keywords". Unfortunately YouTube may be willing to overlook SEF's terms-of-service violation of having "blocks of keywords in the description field" , (and any other offence), because of the income the SoundEffectsFactory Channel generates for them, [ YouTube will make as much their relationship as it as he does ]
Hey, guys:
I just sent a DMCA Take Down notice to MediaFire's office in Texas.
A one page long letter from UK to there has costed me a bit less than a pound. A tracked and signatured letter would've costed 6.20 pounds.
I'm thinking, given the detective work Timbre is doing and that it's a pain in the ass to send individual DMCA Take Down notices for individual sounds, I suggest the authors who see their rights violated locate MediaFire's links and their original links, and give me permission to represent them in a DMCA Take Down notice. I could send a letter for, say, every 10 sounds we gather.
This way, we could save time and letters, and take down a few sounds in a row with less effort and a bit more than a pound total.
If you still want to send a letter individually, here's the transcript of mine.
DMCA TAKE DOWN NOTICE
My name is *Print name.
A website that your company hosts is infringing on at least one copyright I own.
A sound was copied onto your servers without permission.
The original sound can be found at:
*freesound link
The unauthorized and infringing copy can be found at:
*MediaFire link
The user Sound Effects Factory is infringing copyright on a regular basis, of me and other dozens of users by redistributing our materials on your websites, as you can see here: http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/?page=1#post. To put it simply, he's making a living of it.
Unfortunately, I can only represent myself and have no means to locate violation of my copyrighted materials -or other's copyrighted materials- other than going through SEF's sounds one by one.
At this point, I can only speak for myself, but I guess we'd all be very thankful if you considered removing Sound Effects Factory account altogether, rather than enduring a myriad of DMCA notices.
This letter is official notification under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (”DMCA”), and I seek the removal of the aforementioned infringing material from your servers. I request that you immediately notify the infringer of this notice and inform them of their duty to remove the infringing material immediately, and notify them to cease any further posting of infringing material to your server in the future.
Please also be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to remove or disable access to the infringing materials upon receiving this notice. Under US law a service provider, such as yourself, enjoys immunity from a copyright lawsuit provided that you act with deliberate speed to investigate and rectify ongoing copyright infringement. If service providers do not investigate and remove or disable the infringing material this immunity is lost. Therefore, in order for you to remain immune from a copyright infringement action you will need to investigate and ultimately remove or otherwise disable the infringing material from your servers with all due speed should the direct infringer, your client, not comply immediately.
I am providing this notice in good faith and with the reasonable belief that rights my company owns are being infringed. Under penalty of perjury I certify that the information contained in the notification is both true and accurate, and I have the authority to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright(s) involved.
Should you wish to discuss this with me please contact me directly.
Thank you.
*Print name
*Full address
*Phone and E-mail
The USA addressing letters works this way:
https://www.usps.com/send/addressing-tips.htm
Re: Misleading Metadata on the SoundEffectsFactory YouTube channel ...
Here's how to find the tags , (aka "keywords"), on a YouTube video ..
http://imageshack.com/a/img845/7398/no7.gif
Anyone with a YouTube/Gmail account can flag,
(aka "report"), a YouTube video for having "misleading metadata", e.g. ...
http://imageshack.com/a/img62/8672/iysg.gif
Example text ...
#1.MISLEADING METADATA: The YouTube "keyword" Tags in this video include the tags "public"&"domain", but this is not a public-domain sound : it has CC-BY-3.0 attribution license , not CC0 public-domain license, i.e. this video has "misleading metadata".( text length 499 of the 500 permitted characters).
#2.SPAM : There is a block of keywords in the description field, called "extra tags", these are against YouTube's terms-of-service, they are spam, see ... http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Extra+tags%22+%22SoundEffectsFactory%22+site:youtube.com
All of SoundEffectFactory's YouTube videos which use sounds with an attribution-license , but have "public domain" tags, have "misleading metadata", and anyone with a YouTube/Gmail account, ( e.g. you ), can report (flag up) these videos to YouTube.
NB: SoundEffectFactory does not always include the forbidden "blocks of keywords" in the description field, so check in "Show more" description field to confirm that is the case before including the "#2.SPAM ..." bit of the example text above.
These are his typical "blocks of keywords", (including them in the description field is a practice forbidden by YouTube).
free sound effects
sound effects download
download sound effects
sound effects free
cool sound effects
royalty free sound effects
movie sound effects
scream sound effects
sounds effects
sound effects library
gun sound effects
mp3 sound effect
http://www.google.com/search?q=' creativecommons.org licenses' 'SoundEffectsFactory' 'Extra tags:' site www.youtube.com
Update : apparently SoundEffectFactory has now deleted the tags "public" & "domain" from all his YouTube videos , even the ones which he alleges are "public domain". [a small victory].
The "blocks of keywords" spam still remain on many of his videos, ( but have been removed from "8-Bit Circus Theme Music" v=HsSfmcZF9CI ).
So the spam report below is still valid for many of his videos ...
SPAM : There is a block of keywords in the description field, called "extra tags", these are against YouTube's terms-of-service, they are spam, see ... http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Extra+tags%22+%22SoundEffectsFactory%22+site:youtube.com
Here's a link to SoundEffectsFactory's videos in order of popularity ...
http://www.youtube.com/user/SoundEffectsFactory/videos?sort=p&view;=0&flow;=grid